Sadness. Just found another thing that was broke in 1.0

[Captain Sierra]

I understand the rationale for grossly buffing the ion, but the undesirable consequence of them being used for anything other than deep space craft should then also be (even if arbitrary/unrealistic) addressed.

Unfortunately the options for this are limited, as doing anything about it really requires massive mechanical overhauls. Unless of course you have an idea that doesnt need a few hundred lines of code.

Because this game will always be balanced for gameplay first, reducing thrust to a remotely realistic level is not an option without adding thrust-on-rails which is unnecessary code for 1 engine. Reducing atmo Isp doesnt fix the problem outside of Duna. I understand your desire for it to be changed, but I'd suggest considering Squad's options here. Its a limited toolset that does not lend an elegant solution to a modest problem, with often adorable side effects.

[KerikBalm]

the Ion probes I come up with accelerate at 0.1-0.2g. At that rate, a straightforward 1000m/s transfer to Duna is still doable, but requires you to expend ~1300m/s. Any more than that and you have to resort to splitting maneuvers or other shenanigans.

Since when is perapsis kicking a shenanigan?

I use it all the time, even with Nervs

[serolrom]

Ever engine has its performance regardless of its location. I mean, be it vacuum or be it atmospheric, it has a performance. To me it would be unrealistic to nerf or buff just because of it being used for interplanetary or as a lander.

[Laie]

Since when is perapsis kicking a shenanigan?

Periapsis kicking isn't exactly a black art, granted. But compared to a simple point-and-go, it's a lot more involved and a deterrent to many. My point was that with current ions it's not an option but a must.

[Grumman]

Unfortunately the options for this are limited, as doing anything about it really requires massive mechanical overhauls. Unless of course you have an idea that doesnt need a few hundred lines of code.

Because this game will always be balanced for gameplay first, reducing thrust to a remotely realistic level is not an option without adding thrust-on-rails which is unnecessary code for 1 engine. Reducing atmo Isp doesnt fix the problem outside of Duna. I understand your desire for it to be changed, but I'd suggest considering Squad's options here. Its a limited toolset that does not lend an elegant solution to a modest problem, with often adorable side effects.

It would not require "a few hundred lines of code". You would need four things:

1. A check whether the only active engines are ion engines.

2. A check whether the summed axis of thrust of those active ion engines passes approximately through the center of mass, that does not let you turn on time acceleration if not passed.

3. A velocity function that uses the sum of two acceleration vectors (gravity and summed ion engine thrust) to modify the displacement of the ship.

4. A check whether the ship has both electricity and xenon, that turns off time acceleration if triggered.

[PB666]

The state of ion engines in general brings me great frustration. The thrust is far, far too high. They flat-out should not work in an atmosphere of any kind. They're supposed to be for very small spacecraft, orbit-to-orbit only. Not landers. Never landers.

Thanks, this needed to be said.

[Tankman101]

Thanks, this needed to be said.

There are certain conceits that need to be made if ion engines are to be made practical in KSP, seeing as how constant thrust over an orbit isn't a thing unless focused. Mainly, making the thrust unrealistically high so that burns take a reasonable amount of time.

Landers are a side-effect. I say that they should just stay, seeing as how arbitrary workarounds are more dumb than unnecessary realism.

[RoverDude]

Sure, if they were still a side effect. Now, they are not. Not because they were specifically targeted, just that a prior 'interesting and unintentional' side effect got corrected with the ISP changes. Use as landers should not be the driving design factor for ion engines.

If players get creative, great. If for whatever reason the ability vanishes due to completely orthogonal balance updates, so be it. Not much different than people wanting infinigliders, etc.

[Yukon0009]

It would be nice if Squad added some mini jets- previously at least we had the Ion, now we only have fuel gulping mini rocket engines.

[Tankman101]

Sure, if they were still a side effect. Now, they are not.

A little correction, atmospheric landers arn't.

[RoverDude]

A little correction, atmospheric landers arn't.

Ion engines being useable as atmospheric landing engines are tho, that's the side effect.

[Tankman101]

Ion engines being useable as atmospheric landing engines are tho, that's the side effect.

Yes, I was saying ion engines can't be used for atmospheric launders anymore.

Still can hover around Minmus tho.

[Majorjim!]

If they did have realistic thrust though, burn times would be ridiculous..

THIS. Don't stamp out all the fun in the name of realism. Hardly anyone uses them and I am amazed by anyone that feels negatively about them. What could someone possibly have against them??

[tater]

THIS. Don't stamp out all the fun in the name of realism. Hardly anyone uses them and I am amazed by anyone that feels negatively about them. What could someone possibly have against them??

Using them on landers is an exploit. I use them on probes, because that's what probes would actually use, and the game cannot have them run for months on end with time compression past 4x. "Creatively" making landers out of them is like kraken drives, infinigliders, etc. Knock yourself out.

[Superfluous J]

It would not require "a few hundred lines of code". You would need four things

I look forward to your ion engine mod.

[OddFunction]

It would not require "a few hundred lines of code". You would need four things:

1. A check whether the only active engines are ion engines.

2. A check whether the summed axis of thrust of those active ion engines passes approximately through the center of mass, that does not let you turn on time acceleration if not passed.

3. A velocity function that uses the sum of two acceleration vectors (gravity and summed ion engine thrust) to modify the displacement of the ship.

4. A check whether the ship has both electricity and xenon, that turns off time acceleration if triggered.

Four things, which would each require an unknown number of lines of code that would then have to work perfectly with all the other systems and would have to be thoroughly tested before being released. Not just that but you have the extra challenge of doing this at the same time the game is being remade for Unity 5, not to mention that any changes made would have to mesh with their vision of all the inevitable future rebalancing yet to be completed.

I'm not saying your idea is impossible, instead I just foresee a great many insurmountable challenges that would need to be overcome. Then we have to consider who would be angered by this change and who would actually like it.

Tldr; Modifying video games is hard

As for the thread, I have never tried Ion engines but after reading through these posts I am now going straight for that tech node

Edited June 7, 2015 by OddFunction

[Felsmak]

And don't give me BS about 'realism'...these are little green men living on an alien planet in a universe with different physics to ours.

Including some unrealistic elements in a game, or anything for that matter, doesn't mean that everything else necessarily has to be similarly unrealistic. KSP may be set in a tiny universe with little green men, but the gameplay is still intended to resemble real life space travel. So any argument stating that an engine shouldn't be able to perform landings, when its real life equivalent needs months to accomplish anything worthwhile, is not automatically invalid just because the game happens to have little green men and compact planets.

[NovaSilisko]

This thread has generally caused my regrets over adding the ion engine to resurface. Should've never done it unless there was a way for it to thrust on rails...

[NathanKell]

Except 3 is nonsenical, because in warp you're on rails and using Keplerian orbits, not doing integration. That's the point of timewarp.

That's not to say on-rails thrust is impossible--see HoneyFox's Orbit Manipulator plugin, which does exactly that--but it's not trivial.

[FleshJeb]

Just for amusement, check out who you're replying to and then look in the .cfg for the ion engine and see who authored it. NovaSilisko is uniquely suited to say authoritatively what the engine was intended for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[sal_vager]

Not an argument at all, but plain fact, as NovaSilisko designed the part and wrote the config if he says it was intended for a certain use then that is what it was intended for, you don't need any in-game validation when a developer* tells you that is precisely how it was intended to be.

* ex dev but still a KSP dev.

[Tellion]

That's not to say on-rails thrust is impossible--see HoneyFox's Orbit Manipulator plugin, which does exactly that--but it's not trivial.

By the way, said plugin, i know it survived up until 0.90, but does it still work with 1.0.2? I imagine it might not be happy about the changes to the engine module by RF, but then again I know next to nothing about modding :3

Edited June 7, 2015 by Tellion

[basic.syntax]

Like many other parts in KSP, the ion engine gives us the idea of what they are like, without being a completely accurate simulation. That is not meant to be a criticism, I have branched out to learn a lot about real space flight thanks to this philosophy. KSP has introduced me to a ton of stuff that I've never been able to interact with before.

Given enough time, I hope the remaining squad at Squad will eventually rework the necessary code to allow greater realism, and some kind of player-pre-programmed thrust-on-rails. That work would be hard to justify for one part, but, it could be justified, if they think about how it would enable a lot of other near-future, very-low-thrust engine types.

Edited June 7, 2015 by basic.syntax

[LittleBlueGaming]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

That's not how it works in this case. From your link:

...and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence.

When the authority who is referenced is actually the authority for a disputed fact, then it's a valid substantiation. Since NovaSilisko is the one who created the engine, his word on what it was intended for is not false reasoning.

[Majorjim!]

Using them on landers is an exploit. I use them on probes, because that's what probes would actually use, and the game cannot have them run for months on end with time compression past 4x. "Creatively" making landers out of them is like kraken drives, infinigliders, etc. Knock yourself out.

lol. Really? An exploit? They are next to useless as lander engines! You can just about land a kerbal and maybe a small rover. It's hardly a 'go-to' cheaty lander engine. Sheesh guys.. We should be able to experiment with things like that. its F U N.